ILNews

New law school info session Aug. 9

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Another information session has been scheduled for the Abraham Clark School of Law, a proposed new law school in Indianapolis. The meeting, which is open to the public, is Aug. 9 at 6:30 p.m. at Springhill Suites in Carmel, 11855 N. Meridian St.

Directions to the meeting and information about the law school are available on the proposed law school's Web site, www.abrahamclarklaw.com.

To participate in this information session, the school's founder Mark Montefiori requests that attendees send an e-mail with full name and phone number to abrahamclarklaw@sbcglobal.net and include a subject line that refers to the meeting.

The information session is intended for those who would like to offer ideas for the proposed school. The last meeting for the proposed school was in July at the same location.

An article about proposed new schools in Indiana was published in the July 25-Aug. 7, 2007, issue of Indiana Lawyer and is available at http://www.theindianalawyer.com/2k7/html/detail_page.asp?content=536.

While deans of other law schools in the state said they are not opposed to the idea of a new law school, they were uncertain that there was a need for a fifth law school in Indiana.

Instead of enrolling the traditional crop of law school students, Montefiori and others at the July information session suggested that this school could serve a different market of law student. Montefiori is a businessman with 13 years of experience in higher education for working adults, including college admissions, recruitment, marketing, and strategic planning.

Currently there are four law schools in Indiana: Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis, Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington, University of Notre Dame Law School, and Valparaiso University School of Law. The University of St. Francis in Fort Wayne and Indiana State University in Terre Haute have also proposed new law schools in the past two years.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT